Ways and Means Chair Stepping Down

Dempsey’s decision to leave the House indicates he was tired of waiting around for DeLeo to retire so he could move up. Several sources said they believe DeLeo, who pushed through the elimination of an eight-year term limit on the speaker’s position in January 2015, is likely to remain at the chamber’s helm for another three to four years. “Brian just wasn’t willing to wait around that long,” said one source.

The House is run in a top-down fashion by DeLeo, who himself moved up from the Ways and Means job to the speaker’s position in 2009. Dempsey meshed well with DeLeo; both lean conservative for Democrats and generally oppose new taxes. Dempsey entered the House in 1991, the same year as DeLeo, and the two officials are close friends who enjoy broad support within the body.

Sparing you my usual screed about how I hate when politicians step down early (Didn’t they pledge to serve?), I’ll just note that this change in the line of succession may prompt some action down below.

I’ll just note that this change in the line of succession may prompt some action down below.

very highly quite unlikely….

It’s worse than you think and less about DeLeo in particular than most think.

This whole thing is a naked admission that not only is DeLeo the Despot-in-situ, but that the remainder of the chamber are Despots-in-waiting. So what ‘action’ is likely, really, to eventuate that will do anything other than perpetuate the problem?

Change always has unpredictable results. At the least, this should prompt some discussion, and the discussion might lead to action.

I beg you pardon for a lack of clarity. I don’t mean to dispute that ‘action’ will happen.

However, given the wait and the motives — and the shameless advertisement of those motives (can Dempsey, et all, at least pretend they understand what the word Democracy means…?) — given the all-too-transparent motives of the Despot wannabes… any such action is likely to be a perpetuation of the problem. That might, in fact, be a summation of the problem: Despots-in-waiting sitting around for ‘their turn’ — and the apparent approval, or collusion, of all other house members because maybe they want to be a Despot-to-be-named-later — is the problem.

In my view, the problem is, to paraphrase Joseph de Maistre, “we get the government we deserve”.

For a variety of reasons, we have abysmal voter turnout. Too many Massachusetts citizens don’t know who their state rep even IS, never mind bother voting for him or her.

Perhaps if we collectively devoted rather less passion and fervor to our entertainment (including our professional sports entertainers) and rather more to things like how much money gets taken out of our wallets by the government and for what, we might deserve better government.

We have met the enemy and they is us. I hate that cliche, but it is nevertheless true.

Perhaps if CIVICS were required to get a high school diploma? Perhaps if our legislature wasn’t modeled on England in 1630 and had actually evolved? Does anyone on this blog besides me know what “engrossing” legislation means??? [Ask and I will answer]. Oh, how I miss the Rushing 17 [does anyone but ME here know what that was???]

Yes.. For a time “The 17″ voted as a block and drew strength from one another, standing up to Thomas Finneran. I worked with them on access to justice issues in 2003-2004. At times one ‘member’ or the other of the 17 was stuck in a leaky office in the basement, or stripped of staff. As of now, all of them are either in leadership, state senators, or co-opted/beat down with some level of ‘leadership’ position that pays a little more. I do not see any group that works together in the Massachusetts House to have any independence or work for issues that are truly ‘democratic” with capital “D” or small D. Moving ALL “cram it down their throats” alleged discussions of the budget out of public view into Room 328 and eliminating cable coverage of the Massachusetts House helped bludgeon the members into submission in my opinion. Massachusetts has plenty of house cleaning to do itself, and the abject nature of democratic politics and the so-called Democratic Party in Massachusetts has a lot to do with the abysmal voting numbers and swelling ranks of unenrolled voters.

Absolutely about civics, but I would include teaching the history behind engrossing and other quirky traditions which make our Commonwealth special. I don’t think THAT particular action is what’s stopping things from getting done.

Some years ago, my then state senator stepped down during his term to accept a position as a lobbyist. It was also with ML Strategies. His salary as a state senator at that time was $75k. Using the Secretary of State’s website, I was able to see that within a year that same man who had been my state senator at $75 k was earning over $400k. Just saying.

I’ve never been opposed to a pay raise linked to prohibitions on other jobs and a lifetime ban on lobbying for former elected officials. Other reforms like clean elections and term limits could be linked to it.

I’m for both, but I’ll oppose pay raises until we ban outside work, golden parachute jobs, and place iron clad term limits on the leadership. We should let the voters have the final say on broader legislative term limits and we’ll both have equal say on that debate.

Just saw that DeLeo has tapped Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez (D-Jamaica Plain) to be the next W&M Chair. I don’t know anything about him so my only comment would be I wish on principle that the House elect the chairs in a contested race.

I fear you don’t appreciate the depth and intensity of animosity the Massachusetts Democratic Party is creating among Massachusetts Democrats. While I don’t doubt that the various comments you offer about how the organization works are correct, I fear that you do not or will not hear how hostile Democrats in Massachusetts are to the organization.

Like it or not, Democrats in Massachusetts are fed up with the never-ending and relentlessly deteriorating spiral into corruption and self-serving cowardice that we see emanating from the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature.

Explaining why nothing can be done simply isn’t responsive. Whether accurate or not, I think the downrates are because closing the primary is seen as just another way to strengthen the iron grip that Mr. DeLeo and his enablers already have on state government.

There is simply no way to avoid tying Bob DeLeo and his cronies to the Massachusetts Democratic Party. His policies and proposals are out of step with the majority of Massachusetts Democrats and he doesn’t care even a little bit.

Bob DeLeo and his cronies are doing real and lasting damage to the state, to Democrats in Massachusetts, and to the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

Well, I think the comment belongs here too and is a true statement and should be a heads up to folks who stay “loyal” to party politics as usual. Many of us are disgusted and are NOT playing the tired old game.

I could have sworn you had previously commented in favor of closed primaries. I’m not sure nothing can be done. I don’t see primary challenges as taboo and have advocated platform adherence as a criterion for how much help the institutional party gives any given candidate. I also don’t hold DeLeo in quite as much contempt as some do. As big as our party is it may be a plus that someone like him can retain support across the spectrum. I just wish that when people mean the Democratic Caucus they would say Democratic Caucus, rather than the Democratic Party as manifested by the staff and state committee. Maybe when we implement a civics curriculum like many of us would like, it can include a unit on how parties actually work, and what they can and cannot do to influence elections and policy.

I have supported the idea of closed primaries, I didn’t downrate your comment. My point is that Massachusetts Democrats are unhappy with the legislature and therefore the institutional party.

The distinction you are drawing between the Democratic Caucus and the Democratic Party exemplifies the disconnect I’m talking about. I have no doubt that you are correct the two entities are different. I also don’t doubt that no more than 29 voters are aware of that difference statewide.

The existing apparatus of the party, in all its forms and complexity, is responsible for the current state of the “Democratic” legislature. Whether or not you personally join in the contempt of Bob DeLeo, Massachusetts Democrats are angry and hostile towards the party. That anger and hostility is reflected in their decisions to register as “unenrolled” and to avoid local elections.

If we Democrats want to bring Massachusetts Democrats back to the local election booth and back to the party, we must do more than explain why nothing can be changed.

I’m open to suggestions, both to how we fix the situation we’re in and how to educate people without sounding patronizing. I suspect you’re right about the 29 people, but as a DSC member I see it as part of my role to explain how the party works, how to get involved, what the party can and cannot do, etc. I certainly don’t want to sacrifice informational accuracy in this regard to accommodate voter perception. It’s not like the DSC can fire DeLeo (and I wouldn’t be super confident it would want to). I do think at least better communication and a carrot/stick approach to party assistance with next campaign are things we can and should do in the existing environment.

I endorsed closed primaries in the wake of the Coakley loss-nearly a year and a half of studying unenrolled voters has convinced me they are a bad idea. Pablo’s reform is a great way to increase turnout in our primaries without closing them off to unenrolleds we have to win.

I saw somewhere that he calls himself a “practical progressive” and one source called the appointment a surprise. It’s possible that indicates he’s not as lockstep as we might expect, but I honestly have no idea regarding the issues you mention.

He’s a solid DeLeo ally with an identical voting record. It’s really critical that more people be made aware of how few progressive legislators we actually have. Decker and Barber voted against term limits and vote in lockstep with the Speaker. Real losses from their predecessors like Wolf and Sciortino
who were boldly independent.